FWAAA

SFO-ATL is an easy one. As a general rule, people in San Francisco don't travel to Atlanta (or the SE USA) as often as people in ATL (and all the DL SE USA spokes) travel to San Francisco. SFO is a primary destination for everybody. ATL and its spokes are not are not a big destination for Bay Area residents. Accordingly, it makes sense that DL would carry far more passengers in and out of SFO to/from their hubs and spokes than would UA.

UA's connecting percentage at SFO is not real high. There aren't very many domestic connections that make sense at SFO - most of the connections are to and from the overseas flights (incl Hawai'i). UA dominates O&D traffic that originates in San Francisco, but it has no real market strength in Atlanta or the DL's ATL spokes.

Same situation with AA in MIA. DL carries more passengers from MSP and DTW to MiA and back home again, because those areas are full of DL-loyal passengers. Almost all of that traffic originates in those DL-strongholds and is visiting MIA. There is very little MIA-point of sale traffic to those northern wastelands.

I would expect that DL has more nonstops from MSP and DTW to SFO than UA has, for the same reasons. SFO is a destination, like LAS or MCO.

AA has a lot of seats from DFW to SFO, which is to be expected, since UA doesn't dominate DFW. UA's strength from Texas to SFO is evident at IAH.

Baze

And I always chuckle when I hear infrequent fliers step onboard the RJ's, they almost always say the same thing. Isn't this United Airlines? I thought they flew real airplanes. This one is so small.

enviroian

This happened this morning leaving LCH on a 135. Some dude boards (I'm right there sitting at 1A) and says to the flight attendant "WOW what a small plane this is! I can't believe this!".

Dude...news flash...you are in LAKE CHARLES. What do you expect a 788?

LASUA1K

How's that flight doing?? Just fyi, Delta does fly 717's into there.

enviroian

You mean as in operationally? Oh probably like other UA EX flights. If it tinkles rain the whole network is shut down.

They do? Odd as I only saw a UA and AA Eagle counter there today.

Flyflyguy

I don't think DL flies into LCH at all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Ch...d_destinations

kapkap46

Totally untrue. Captains do not have 1000's of hours in Jets if they are flying Regional Jets.

Inexperienced pilots take extremely low paying jobs on Regional Jets in the hope of building hours to get jobs in larger aircraft where the pay and benefits are far better.

1500 hour requirement is total hours most of which can and sometimes are in light aircraft with 2-4 seats.

The pilots in those Regional Jets have a fraction of the experience of most Captains in Full size jets .

They make practically no money and take the jobs in the hope of landing a real airline job.

By the way I am one of those people who would qualify to fly Regional Jets with 2000 hours and a Commercial License which I never used . All I would need to do is get the ATR and I too could be flying people around in Regional Jets.

{Reading the following} maybe you won't feel so safe next time you are in Thunderstorms in a Regional Jet.

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-...e-pilot-hiring

Always Flyin

I never said pilots at regionals have thousands of hours of jet time. I said they have thousands of hours of experience.

Perhaps re-reading my post would be beneficial.

Do pilots at the majors have even more hours? Of course. But for a 5-hour flight, they will spend on average less than 5-minutes with their hands on the controls. Lack of basic airmanship skills is one of the biggest problems in commercial aviation. The more experience a pilot has, the less they actually fly.

There is experience and there is experience. I don't see regional jets falling out of the skies regularly.

goalie

MODERATOR NOTE

Discuss the subject of the thread and not each other as posts discussing and/or attacking each other will be edited/deleted

goalie
UA Forum Co-Moderator

phxbuff

United has no interest in being a world-class airline. They have no real desire to be a “domestic-class” airline. Their sole interest is to run a profitable airline as dictated by their Wall Street overlords; customers and employees be damned. Not to suggest that profitability isn’t a desirable pursuit - it most certainly is the most desirable pursuit. I’d suggest, however, that when a carrier (see: Delta Air Lines) places equal importance on their employees, their customers and their shareholders, all three win.

Speaking specifically to the OPs Denver observation about United’s lack of schedule/equipment competitiveness vs Delta in the Denver-Atlanta market, several have posted that because of Delta’s far more sizeable and superior hub at ATL, it only makes sense that United not really compete. To some extent that’s true. Unfortunately, that same argument can’t explain Delta’s schedule/equipment superiority in the Denver-Salt Lake market where UA runs six roundtrips (one mainline the rest either Q400 or, worse still, CRJ-200s) vs Delta’s seven roundtrips (also with a single daily mainline roundtrip but nothing smaller than an E-175 or CRJ-900). United (or rather, of late, United Express) has significantly more service at DEN than DL in much smaller SLC, yet DL has the advantage in both capacity and frequency.

United appears to be operating on the premise that their supposed network superiority gives them leverage to shrink system capacity and squeeze a revenue premium out of what remaining passengers they carry. Fortunately, there are in most instances, competitive alternatives which are much more attractive than flying United. I baled on United last year after seven years as a 1K. While I’m perfectly happy now at American, I’m saddened that the airline I once knew is now a second-rate shadow of its former self. But, hey, if that’s how United thinks there’s money to be made, let’s see how much longer the market will give them that chance.

LASUA1K

OOOps.. I meant Lafayette... Duh.. Lake Charles is perfect for express. I'm just wondering how it is doing with yield?

minnyfly

Some do. Some make a career with a regional and desire high seniority over increased pay at a major. Still more are resuming their career with a regional after previously flying for a legacy. You simply don't know what kind of experience is in the cockpit. There are mainline jets flying out there with new captains that have never been a captain before at another airline. You simply don't know.

No it doesn't, but other market forces are in play that do. They lead to a logical, economical solution as to why UA is "smaller" on DEN-SLC. First off, currently both are at 7x daily with one mainline, but UA commonly has the larger A320 both ways versus DL's A319/A320 combo. On the other hand DL's RJs are all 70-76 seaters, while UA has a couple CR2s and the rest are Q400s. So capacity-wise the carriers are nearly equal with a slight edge to DL. Since by my rough count UA at DEN is up to 50% larger than DL at SLC, why are the carriers the same size on this city pair? It's the different sizes of the local market. In general, DL has hubs in smaller markets. This is the case here. DEN is a much larger local market than SLC. So DL will see more demand to DEN through SLC than UA will have demand to SLC through DEN. Hence DL needs relatively more capacity for its hub size. Like usual, UA competes very strongly on a relative basis to a DL hub.

davidviolin

You articulated my thoughts better than me!

BearX220

Air travel as provided by Spirit and Ryanair is a commodity; by SQ and EK, not so much. Most entrants, UA included, operate somewhere in the middle.

It is facile and defeatist to dismiss the whole sector as a "commodity." In any competitive commodity business -- flour, car insurance, hotel rooms, vodka -- you earn your margin by differentiating your core product with a magnetic brand plus desirable experience design.

Hotel rooms, for example: sleep is sleep, hot water is hot water, but Red Roof Inn gets $99 for theirs, Hyatt Regency gets $399 for theirs. You complement the commodity deliverables with a great experience. Vodka: most people can't tell Popov from Ketel in a blind test, but a lot of people will pay 3X the price for Ketel.

You don't reduce everything to bare-bones basics, discount the value of service and empathy and an aspirational brand, and claim that anything more is impossible, or economic suicide.

It is not true that you have to head for the bottom or die. The tragedy of UA is that they have thrown away a magnetic brand and stripped out the high-value experience, so all you are left with are the (poorly executed) basics, but they're still trying to charge a premium for what's left. If Smisek ran a vodka distillery, he'd decant quasi-kerosene into Ketel bottles, price them at $40, and tell customers to shut up.

Then explain Delta Air Lines.

Your comment ignores the ROI DL, and many providers of "commodity" products / services, enjoy when they invest in a layer of high-value customer experience.

The core premise of the Smisek master plan was less choice, fewer options, strip out the service / empathy layer, resigned captive customers, higher prices, profit. This is how the DMV and city transit systems operate. What seems to have stunned Smisek is that (A) many customers can only take so much abuse, and (B) other airlines have the cheek to break rank and innovate. The we're-going-to-teach-the-customer-who's-boss line is not a route to long-term success; it is absolutely, positively not a route to excellence.

Artpen100

I tend to think the UA business model is to have the best and most direct (okay, nonstop) routes, and that people will pay for that and you don't have to offer as good a product. And I think that is pretty much right, at least up until a competitor starts flying the same route at that same or better price.